Hi,
snip
I'm not thinking of today but the future. And yes, another
argument would be that there isn't enough address space for this to be
effectively private. Those are two different issues, but fixing the
boundary here reminds me of mistakes we made with IPv4 way back when.
In
Just remember kids,
disagreeing is not attacking. accusing them of attacking when all
they're doing is disagreeing is an attack on them.
don't assume people have no real world experience or responsibilities if
they choose not to announce to the world their job title or their
affiliations in
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:54:50 +0200
Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG
and IETF consensus
If anyone objects to this course of
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:21:36 -0700
Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica rbon...@juniper.net wrote:
- In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS
On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:10:03 +0900
Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
All,
Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
better chance of consensus.
Pardon my ignorance, but where is the document describing the
implications of historic{,al} vs deprecated?
This
On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:44:24 -0700
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 07/02/2011 18:50, Mark Smith wrote:
Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6
deployment?
It's been discussed ad nauseum in numerous fora.
Discussion isn't evidence, as people usually don't
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:02:02 -0700
Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
In the meantime, i null route the 6to4 anycast address because it
creates half open state in my CGN. Been doing that for at least 5
years.
So, to be clear, you're not making an observation that 6to4 is broken,
to make 6to4 historic are not based on issues
specific to 6to4. If 6to4 is made historic, does he then start lobbying
for UDP-historic?
On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:02:02 -0700
Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
In the meantime, i null
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:43:23 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
... about 80% of the time.
Or 99.999% of the time once you get it setup. The problem isn't 6to4, it's
*automatic* 6to4.
No, because you
Hi Gert,
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:51:26 +0200
Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:15:17PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
I have a vested interest in anycast 6to4 continuing to exist,
This actually brings up a good argument:
are you going to pay for us to run
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:59:47 -0700
Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Very few of the people using 6to4 in this way will show up in Google's user
behavior analysis, of course, because Google doesn't run its own
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:05:33 -0700
Erik Kline e...@google.com wrote:
The youtube folks made the decision to leave the video-serving
hostnames available in blacklist-mode, meaning only very broken
networks won't get s.
This is being watched, and could easily change back. The exact
Hi,
I've been aware of this draft for a while, and have begrudgingly felt
that if any form of address translation is going to occur in IPv6 then
the method described in this I-D was a good way to do it, as it avoids
many of the drawbacks of many of the IPv4 NAT and NAPT methods.
One area where I
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:52:36 +0200
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As IETF Sergeant-at-arms, I will suggest that this topic is specific to 6MAN
and should be further discussed there.
Books worked for me, but then again, I'm willing to spend my own money
on keeping my knowledge
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Ole Jacobsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If by IPSec you mean what the marketing folks call VPN, then so far it
has worked just fine.
Muticast, VOIP and the rest of stuff you mention probably does NOT work,
but my point was that this is NOT what most
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:03:46 +0100
Christian de Larrinaga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
A traveller cannot change ISP easily so either will just have to accept some
things cannot be done or will find a way. As it happens one can preplan and
setup a proxy service or a tunnel broker etc that
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:40:03 -0400
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ohta-san,
I do not expect that we will agree on this, and may need to
simply agree to disagree, but, having just reviewed the draft
you included in your slightly earlier not, let me try to explain
the other point of
Hi Hadmut,
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:42:23 +0200
Hadmut Danisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
at least here in Germany Internet providers tend to
do and not to do what they want.
- Some cut off their clients every 24 hours (DSL)
- Some block or slowdown particular tcp ports
to get
On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:20:49 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, spam filtering can be quite effective.
Not using spam filtering ... I don't like the chances of
false positives or negatives.
Today either you filter spam
On Sun, 30 May 2004 08:45:41 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
As Mr. Borenstein knows, a substantial fraction and probably
most spam is current sent using $30/month consumer accounts.
The spam that is not sent using
On Sun, 30 May 2004 11:04:32 -0600 (MDT)
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mark Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
people to monitor and deal with their abusive customers.
That is why many of the providers of those $30/month
accounts submit their own IP address blocks to various
On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:16:42 -0400
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This would be a very interesting philosophical argument if in
fact what we were discussing was something that could take a
significant bite out of spam. In the
On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:48:57 +0900
Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Smith;
A number of commercial
products and applications do rely on PMTU to work, and will
do an PATH MTU discovery, and send the MTU sized packets
withDF (don't frag).
and send packets larger than MTU
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:44:16 +0900
Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Smith;
I'm keen to
find out if my understanding of PMTUD purpose and operation
is incorrect.
Read the RFC or my quotation of it.
Ok, well, I haven't got far into it, and it seems to correspond
to what
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:55:43 +0900
Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Anderson;
A number of commercial
products and applications do rely on PMTU to work, and will
do an PATH MTU discovery, and send the MTU sized packets with
DF (don't frag).
and send packets larger than
On Sun, 09 May 2004 06:43:46 +0900
Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Smith;
Filtering on protocol/port numbers is a broken concept.
Yes, it is.
However, it is merely as broken as PMTUD that we don't need
security discussion to deny PMTUD.
I've understood that what you
Hi Harald,
On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:50:07 -0700
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried to incorporate the extremely useful feedback I got
on this list and from the Korea plenary.
I hope this is ready to send to IETF-wide Last Call.
This is your chance to get at it
Hi Iljitsch,
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:19:49 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if there are any plans to change the status of
the class E address space (240.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255).
Currently, there are approximately 221 usable /8s: classes A
(125), B (64)
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:50:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Kolis) wrote:
This really doesn't say much about the scalability of the
solution. What it indicates is how much effort people are
willing to go to to commit what is perceived as victimless
crime.
Two things.
First, here in Canada
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:17:55 -0800
Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
These protocols require that at least one
side in each transfer is capable of
receiving inbound sessions.
This is not true. Kaaza does not require to open any ports nor
configure anything
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Keith Moore wrote:
The residential users don't need to have a globaly unique
IP address.
That's like saying residential telephone users don't need
to have a phone number at which they
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:29:02 -0800
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting reading: some have been asking what the cost of
moving from a peer-to-peer to a service/consumer model are, in
terms of applications deployed and the ability to build more
robust business models. Many ISPs are
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 07:53:04 -0500
In such context, a more participative behaviour should be
welcome. Elits should help and educate rather than keeping the
steering so firmly. RFC aren't they meaning Request For
Comments ? Why did I never find the button add your comment,
yet, on any of
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:28:46 -0500
Peter Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi...
Congratulations on your perspicacity. I too was suspicious of
this VISA email and immediately went phishing on Google until I
saw your email. There must be thousands who were taken in by
this despicable
Just received this Phish email.
What is amazing about it is that, while it looks like a plain ascii email, it was
actually in HTML, and HTML had been used to make it look like an plain ascii email.
I don't remember giving Visa any of my nosense.org email addresses, so I was
suspicious.
I've heard of one recently where the actual page was from the legitimate bank web
site, but the dialog box window asking for username and password detail was the
spoofed component. Everythink, including HTTPS locks, URLs etc displayed would have
looked, and actually were legitimate.
On Sun,
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:33:43 -0500 (EST)
shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Dean Anderson wrote:
People need to rely on their common sense. This isn't a technical
problem. It is a social engineering problem. Your best bet is to read
Kevin Mitnick's book The Art of
And don't trust emails asking for sensitive information. Verify their requests
independantly via the phone, for example, and just _don't_ use a phone number that is
supplied in the email.
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:26:05 -0500 (EST)
shogunx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps the solution is to not
There are more scary stories at
http://stupidsecurity.com
Some people think publishing stories like these are wrong ... in security, it is far
better to learn from other people's mistakes than your own.
btw, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] won't receive this ... they are rejecting
my
I just match on either the
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
header, or the ML specific email address I've created.
I'm using Sylpheed though, it seems to be more flexible on matching header fields than
most other email clients I've used in the past.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:13 -0500
Gordon Cook
I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address
ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX records.
I can't get matching PTR records.
I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't have matching PTR and MX records.
Why should
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:37:23 +0100
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linux could at least stand on the claim that it was implementing
the RFCs as written, and that the interoperability problem was
due to the other end failing to implement the RFCs.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:19:15 +0100
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Smith writes:
So what purpose do RFCs serve if they aren't specific enough to be
complied with ?
They can easily be complied with and yet still be general. It's just
that there may be argument
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:19:49 +0100
Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Kristoff writes:
Those are pretty bold statements.
Well, when something pops up in software I use that adds functionality
that I never wanted and breaks things that used to work, bold statements
are in
If I have a system that does everything I require, I don't need
improvements.
So your currently requirements are exactly the same as all the other users of the
Internet ? I find it hard to believe that your requirements are exactly the same as
mine, and I'm only one of the other
45 matches
Mail list logo
